Opinion

The Great Debate

‘Reset’ on Iran now

By Yousaf Butt
May 16, 2013

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili (C) arrives at the Iranian Consulate before his meeting with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Istanbul May 15, 2013. REUTERS/Osman Orsal

On Wednesday, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, met one on one for their regularly scheduled diplomatic dance over Iran’s nuclear program – this time in Istanbul. A solution is about as likely to materialize from these discussions as a slow waltz between them.  Indeed, the two sides in Istanbul are reported to remain far apart.

The fundamental reason progress is unlikely now – and perhaps also after the Iranian presidential election on June 14 – is that the West has badly mishandled the nuclear issue since the early 1980s. Iran is also at fault.

But because Iran is an adversary, the West led by the United States, has repeatedly used its influence and powerful funding stature to politicize United Nations agencies. The West has also frequently used illegal and extra-judicial processes that made a travesty of the normal non-proliferation machinery, and set a negative precedent that is poisoning the global non-proliferation regime.

Only dramatic moves by the West – like dropping multilateral and unilateral sanctions and de-politicizing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – can improve the situation and restore faith in key non-proliferation institutions.  Fortunately, President Barack Obama has some breathing room because of mounting evidence that economic and financial sanctions imposed on Iran are backfiring. He should use this time to carry out a crucial “reset” in the U.S.-Iran relationship.

Iran was deemed in non-compliance with its IAEA nuclear safeguards agreement in 2005.  Tehran has, though, now explained or corrected every substantiated and lawful concern, as confirmed by the IAEA in many reports. There is no substantive international legal reason to continue penalizing or sanctioning Tehran.

Even the initial non-compliance finding in 2005 appears to have been politically motivated.  Safeguards non-compliance is a notoriously subjective determination, and Iran’s lapses before 2005 were not serious enough to qualify for this determination – particularly in light of how leniently other nations have been treated when they failed to fully comply.

While there is no substantive legal basis to justify continued harassment or punishment of Iran, there still seems to be political desire to hold Iran to a different standard from other Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory nations.

Pierre Goldschmidt, former head of the IAEA Safeguards Department, sees the problems created by the IAEA politicization. “There is a danger,” he writes, “of setting bad precedents based on arbitrary criteria or judgments informed by political considerations. … It is therefore necessary for the agency [IAEA] to formally acknowledge that in the past some of its decisions have created potentially damaging precedents that need to be corrected to avoid any impression that the implementation of the IAEA statute is selective.”

Hans Blix, former head of the IAEA, has also weighed in on this. “So far, Iran has not violated the NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty],” Blix said, “and there is no evidence right now that suggests that Iran is producing nuclear weapons.”

The  remaining unresolved issues mentioned in the recent IAEA reports on Iran are unsubstantiated allegations from third-party intelligence agencies, which claim there may have been “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program more than 10 years ago – largely at Iran’s Parchin military base.  Despite Tehran’s requests, it has not been allowed to see this material.

The IAEA’s reliance on this evidence is problematic, especially since some leaked material has not stood up to scientific scrutiny. This does not bode well for the quality of the rest of the secret allegations against Iran that the IAEA says it possesses. It’s possible that the agency is again in possession of fabricated evidence.

Nonetheless, the agency has been insisting on access to the Parchin military base to address  concerns about “possible military dimensions.”   The agency is asking for this though it is not authorized to visit undeclared non-nuclear military sites. It is also not required or equipped to investigate and assess the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons in the countries it is monitoring.

The agency’s standard safeguards treaty makes clear that its mandate is to account for fissile materials “for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

This may seem a subtle, technical distinction, but it has important implications for the role the IAEA has been given to play by its member states – including Iran. The IAEA is not a “nuclear watchdog” or nuclear policeman.  It is, essentially, a fissile material accounting agency, with deliberately limited powers of investigation into states’ peaceful nuclear programs – which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty refers to as every state’s “inalienable right.”

As Goldschmidt correctly summed up, “The Department of Safeguards doesn’t have the legal authority it needs to fulfill its mandate and to provide the assurances the international community is expecting.”

By inflating old allegations about Iran’s nuclear program, the IAEA risks derailing the more urgent negotiations aimed at resolving the larger nuclear issues between the West and Iran.

Former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley, a U.S. weapons engineer, has noted: “By openly providing a questionable technical basis for inspections the IAEA is leaving itself open to a serious loss of credibility as a technical organization. … The IAEA work to date, including the mischaracterization of satellite images of Parchin, is more consistent with an IAEA agenda to target Iran than of technical analysis.”

Iran is regularly accused of being underhanded in nuclear matters – and it has been at times, mostly during the 1990s. But why did Iran behave this way?

After the 1979 revolution, one of the new government’s first actions was to stop its nuclear program. The new leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was strongly opposed to nuclear power. In 1983, Iran formally approached the IAEA for help in setting up a research-level facility for uranium enrichment. The IAEA agreed, since helping member nations in developing peaceful nuclear programs is part of its mandate. When U.S. officials learned of this, however, they intervened to stop it. Mark Hibbs documented this in an article for Nuclear Fuel.

One can debate whether this was an expedient move on Washington’s part, but it also demonstrates the IAEA’s politicization. So Iran’s underhanded behavior in the 1990s of not declaring nuclear materials – though inexcusable – was a response to this IAEA action.

The situation has only worsened – particularly from the vantage point of the non-nuclear weapons states party to the NPT. The five nations with nuclear weapons – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – are collectively in breach of the treaty’s terms because of their restrictive export policies of peaceful nuclear energy technologies to developing countries, as institutionalized through the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Although their reasons for restricting dual-use nuclear technology are understandable – and perhaps admirable – it is counter to the letter and spirit of the treaty. To justify a cartel of technologically advanced states restricting the supply of nuclear technology would require rewriting the treaty.

Though Iranian intransigence is often blamed for the lack of progress in talks between Iran and the West, it is increasingly clear that, as the New York Times recently put it, “Mr. Obama’s aides seem content with stalemate.”

According to Ambassador John Limbert, one of the U.S. hostages in Tehran from 1979-81, even the decision to try to make a deal with Iran has not yet been reached: “First and foremost … the president needs to make that decision – ‘I want a deal’ – and instruct his people to get a deal.”

Thomas Pickering, former undersecretary of state for political affairs, agrees. “It is time for the administration,” Pickering says , “to make the sweat equity investment in negotiations equal to what it has done on sanctions.”

It appears that the P5+1 nations negotiating with Iran — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, plus Germany — are not making a serious offer.

While this impasse continues, Iranian citizens suffer and die from the tightest sanctions in history.  Meanwhile, the European Court’s recent decisions show that the sanctions imposed unilaterally by the United States and the European Union are unlawful. A distinguished panel of experts on the Iran Project also concurs that the sanctions are backfiring.

As pressure has increased, the group concluded, sanctions have “contributed to an increase in repression and corruption within Iran” and “may be sowing the seeds of long-term alienation between the Iranian people and the United States.” A recent U.S. Congressional Research Service’s report on Iran supports  the assessment.

All this evidence that sanctions are not achieving their purpose should give President Barack Obama political breathing room to authorize U.S. negotiators to put serious sanctions relief on the table. This could prove to be in America’s national security interest.

A reset could include giving Iran what it wants most – the recognition that it has the right to maintain a peaceful nuclear fuel cycle.

This recognition – which is a correct interpretation of international law – would cost Washington nothing but would be a significant diplomatic gesture for Iran.  It is also a pragmatic necessity, since Iran can continue its enrichment program, with broad international support, whether the United States recognizes its right to do so or not.

In return, Iran could agree to ratify and implement the IAEA’s voluntary “Additional Protocol” agreement. This would significantly increase agency inspectors’ ability to verify Iran’s statements to the IAEA and confirm that no nuclear material is diverted to nuclear weapons use.

The proposed reset of relations would be a straightforward and honest solution to the stalemate caused by the West’s mishandling of Iran’s nuclear program over the past decades. A quick word from Obama in Catherine Ashton’s ear, and we could all look forward to a slow waltz between Jalili and Ashton at their next meeting.

 

PHOTO (Insert A): European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) and Iran’s chief negotiator Saeed Jalili pose for the media before their meeting in Baghdad, May 23, 2012. REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani

PHOTO (Insert B): The director of the National Nuclear Safety Administration Li Ganjie (centre R) speaks next to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano (center L) at the Second Extraordinary Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety at the U.N. headquarters in Vienna August, 27, 2012. REUTERS/Herwig Prammer 

 PHOTO (Insert C): A scientist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) environmental sample laboratory in Seibersdorf. The agency says it has the capability to find tiny traces of atomic material at a site even if a country tries to cover it up. April 24, 2013. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

PHOTO (Insert D): Former Ambassador Thomas Pickering in New York, September 24, 2008. REUTERS/Jacob Silberberg

Comments
9 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

I think, signing of Additional Protocol by Iran is going to be a grave and existential mistake. Iran has already suffered enough under NPT, so Additional Protocol is going to become another colonial “treaty” opening up the gate for more pressure on Iran than already put on it.

What most people including the author of this article do not understand is that, this whole fiasco is not about nuclear issue at all. It is about the crazy imperial hegemonic desires of US that every one in the world has to bow to it and worship it. Iranians have decided to live free. Nuclear issue has become just a pressure point to subjugate Iran to worship the self proclaimed earth god, the United States of America. If there was no nuclear issue and Iran had no nuclear technology, it would have been something else eg. chemical weapons, biological weapons, missiles, rockets, satellites, guns, knives, radio, keys and baby milk. It is just an excuse.

As for the assertion of the article about a reset and sanction relief, it is not going to happen. Ever. First of all, these toughest sanctions in history have come to reality by myriads of thousands of laws passed by senate, congress, US president, security council, EU, and the legislature of three dozen western aligned countries over the past 33 years. Removing them would take an eternity and even if the non-existent political will is mustered for their removal, it will take our and Iranians life times to see them waived. I guess Iranians also know that sanctions will never be removed.

But it is not only sanctions. The article is mute over other Iranian contentions as are all other western media, reporting on this issue. There is never a mention of unlawfully blocking Iran the access to Rossing Uranium mine which Iran is the owner of for the past 40 years through trickery. Or take the example of Eurodif, or Darkhovin nuclear power plant or Bushehr power plant etc etc. West seems to have forgotten about all these trickery but Iranians have not and will not. It is only natural for victims to remember horrors much longer than the perpetrators of the horror and trickery.

As things are going, with ever toughening of sanctions and continuous demonization and ridicule of Iranian nation, the ground is being laid for a military conflict with Iran for a regime change, the obvious goal of western world with regard to Iran. West can not accept anything less than complete destruction and capitulation of Iranian nation. And there is only one way for Iran to stop this madness. To build nuclear weapons exercising their inalienable national right under article 10 of NPT and pull out of this shameful imperial “treaty”. Once and for all. Peace will then prevail.

Posted by BluePlaneteer | Report as abusive
 

It is amazing how in such a long article loaded with all kind of information the author manages to avoid one word: Israel. This word explains all and everything about the attitude of the West.

Iran rethoric on Israel is well-known. Just the mastering of nuclear technology by Iran is perceived as potentially dangerous. The West has absolute commitment to the stability of Israel. There will be thus no reset or deal with Iran until Iran dismantles its nuclear program. Or the program will be dismantled.

Posted by wirk | Report as abusive
 

Yes, Israel should be included in the discussion because it is well known that they are the only state in the Mid East that has nuclear weapons, but are not a signatory to the NPT, and refuse to sign it, or join the Mid East Nuclear Free Zone. Israel has also explicitly stated that they would use them too.
As long as exceptions are made for Israel, and all others are held to a different standard, Iran will continue to be sanctioned.
It is long past time that Israel be made to sign the NPT, declare their nuclear weapons, and join in the Nuclear Free Mid East. Instead, they, and the US, continue to block all such movement.

If Israel really wants a permanent peace with is neighbors, it must sign the NPT, and work with them to make the Mid East a nuclear weapons free zone, including banning all nuclear weapons being based there by the US.

Posted by DanaJ | Report as abusive
 

@ Yousaf Butt, excellent article!

@wirk, if you think Iran cares about what Isreal thinks, your an idiot. If Isreal and the US want to go to war, go ahead. Go to war with the Islamic Republic of Iran!
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive
 

What Israel wants, and has, is a crony in the USA. It wants the Americans to do as they are told, when they are told, and to pay for it as well. Not to mention at the expense of American rather than Israeli lives. There is no opposition to Israel among the political classes in the USA. No questioning is permitted. The problem they are having is with the American people, who want no more Israeli wars by 90% to 10%. Embarrassing to countries that like to throw the word “democracy” around. But it will not stop the wars.

Posted by usagadfly | Report as abusive
 

@ BluePlaneteer –

Well said! The Iranians have already been victims of US foreign policy, which is designed to create “colonial” conditions conducive to exploitation by the US economy, and have no wish to return to US hegomonic rule.

Also, I agree that to avoid any mention of Israel in this context is a deliberate distortion of the truth.

These are the two main problems with US-Iranian relations, both of them related in various ways.

The issue of a nuclear Iran is a deliberate red herring to justify the US extremist policies that will probably lead to war in the Middle East.

Posted by EconCassandra | Report as abusive
 

Great idea! Reset with Iran. It worked so well in 2008 with other countries such as Russia, so lets do it again.

Posted by assmuncher | Report as abusive
 

I’m no expert in how to build a nuclear weapons program, but I have read a lot about nations which developed peaceful nuclear programs, and Iran’s program looks nothing like a peaceful program. Take Canada, for example. They looked at various technologies and chose to go forward with an obvious eye to minimizing expenses. Iran, on the other hand, built every kind of facility needed to produce uranium and plutonium bombs. They didn’t have to, but they did. And they tried to do it in secret. When I first saw the list of facilities they were building, I had no doubt what their purpose was. This article is a biased sham. I agree with the assessment that the world would be a much worse place if Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state.

NUCLEAR.COM

Steve Schulin,
Founding editor

Posted by nuclearcom | Report as abusive
 

The important reference for the sentence:
“Mark Hibbs documented this in an article for Nuclear Fuel.”
should be:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=htt p://www.geocities.com/thelasian/nucleafu el_iran.html&date=2009-10-25+23:00:25
instead of the mentioned:
http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran s-nuclear-program
which does not reference “Mark Hibbs” at all. Infact, it was a surprise to me that “Iran Primer” which is part of US Institute of Peace does not mention this US attempt to deny Iran cooperation for peaceful purposes. Then when you realize that the government of US at the time was clandestinely supplying Iran with conventional arms, denying them of peaceful development of nuclear technology, it does make current US efforts to stop the nuclear Iran somewhat hypocritical!

Posted by VakileRoaya | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •